Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4344 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 30294 of 2016 Petitioner :- Smt Chandra Devi Respondent :- A.D.J Iind Hardoi And Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Ambika Prasad Pathak,Dhirendra Singh,Kumar Ayush,Vinod Kumar Singh and Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 26387 of 2016 Petitioner :- Smt Chandra Devi Respondent :- A.D.J Court Iind Hardoi And Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard Shri Anant, Advocate holding brief of Shri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Both the petitions are decided by this common order. 3. Petition No.30294 of 2016 has been filed challenging the order dated 21.08.2012, whereby the application under Order 22, Rule 10 CPC was dismissed as well as order dated 20.03.2015, whereby the revision was also dismissed. Petition No.26387 of 2016 has been filed challenging the order, 17.10.2015, whereby the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was rejected as well as the revisional order dated 19.09.2016, whereby the revision was also dismissed. 4. The facts in brief are that the land in question belonged to one Lallu Prasad Mishra and after his death, the same was recorded in the name of his daughter Nanhi Devi. On 16.05.2006, Smt. Nanhi Devi executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.3, who is also related to Nanhi Devi. On the basis of the said sale deed, respondent No.3 has filed a mutation application. To the said mutation application, objections were filed in the name of Nanhi Devi by impersonator and a suit No.321 of 2006 was also filed for cancellation of the sale deed. Subsequently, the application came to be filed by the original Nanhi Devi for withdrawal of the said suit. It is also stated that mutation proceedings were not pursued and thereafter, the suit filed on behalf of Nanhi Devi as an impersonator came to be decreed ex-parte. On the basis of the said ex-parte decree, the order of mutation was recalled. A revision was preferred against the said order of recall in the mutation proceedings and the revision was directed to be decided afresh. It is further on record that on 15.12.2009, the impersonator, impersonating as Nanhi Devi executed a sale deed in favour of one Kalpana Devi, who moved an application for seeking recall of the ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. It also records that a suit No.190 of 2010 was also filed for cancellation of the sale deed dated 15.12.2009, which is said to be pending. The said Kalpana Devi executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and on the basis of the said sale deed, the petitioner filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, in the said miscellaneous proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which came to be rejected. Revision filed against the said order was also rejected. After dismissal of the revision, the petitioner filed an application purported to be under Order 1 and Rule 10 CPC and in miscellaneous proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which was also rejected and the revision was also dismissed. 5. Considering the fact that the entire case of the petitioner is premised on the execution of the sale deed, executed during the pendency of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC by a person, whose title was at a cloud. Both the courts have rightly rejected the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC as well as under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. No interference is called for against the said orders. 6. Petitions are dismissed in the above terms. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench